Got enough information?

[hermit22]

Ok, all this is toward Undertoad. Sorry Dude.

Actually, the general German sentiment these days is toward pacifism. Most mainstream Germans are embarassed, for lack of a better term, by World War II.

Your idea of radical Islam is generally correct. Saudi Arabia's rulers are the closest to a set of radical Islam rulers that I can think of (if someone else can find another one, then I stand corrected). The funny thing, though - Hussein is a secular ruler. He may impose ethnic restrictions, but he is as secular as Musharaff over in Pakistan. In many Arab countries, the trend was/is toward a more liberal set of ideals. Even Iran has been making a steady shift away from the hard-line clerics that overthrew the Shah. So you can't characterize the entire region as being full of radical Islamic mujahideen. I think my earlier Falwell corollary is fairly appropriate.

As for the telethon... the publicly declared intent was to raise money for the victims of the Israeli attacks. As for the motives of the organizers...it's very easy to assign motives from the outside. And without the numbers to show where the money actually went, not much more than that can be known.

I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea for a fringe group to get a hold of wmd. But when there's been no link provided between a leader and these groups and we declare that we're going to attack anyway, because we don't like the guy and think he's a threat? That's modern-day idealogical imperialism.

There's an excellent series of articles that started on Slate this week about what to do with the Middle East. While I can't say I agree with everything the author has said, so far, he seems to generally be on the right path:

link

The series is still in progress. Check it out.

And finally, deterrance becomes an archaic principle when we can't point the enemy out on a map. I don't know what should replace it though.

[Undertoad]

Oh hey, don't say sorry. I love this stuff and I love it more when I'm proven wrong. Which happens regularly, which is why I've gone with my current user title.

The only way we can figure this stuff out is by putting it all out there. We all put in and I think we all learn.

[hermit22]

Oh hey, don't say sorry. I love this stuff and I love it more when I'm proven wrong. Which happens regularly, which is why I've gone with my current user title.

Heh, fair enough. Just didn't want you thinking I was picking on you, especially since I'm generally just a lurker.

[Nic Name]

To illustrate his open-minded approach, UT tells a favorite anecdote about economist John Maynard Keynes.

"It was late in Keynes's career, and a young man approached him after a talk and asked Keynes to explain a contradiction between what he'd said that night and an article he'd written earlier in his career. Keynes's response was simply: 'When I'm wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?'"

OK, so I made that up about UT telling the story ... but it could be true.

[Undertoad]

I would never quote Keynes. It would be... wrong.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Oh, and one more thing tw, just for the fun of it:

Getting a lecture on not starting a war from a German is a little.. uh... ironic, don't cha think?

Largest numbers of American immigrants were from ... Germany.

Yes, even Germans can be reformed. Just stick them in a melting pot - be it America or the European Union.

Original purpose of NATO? To keep America in, the USSR out, and Germans down.


Considering everything posted here and even Chancellor Shröder's benchmark political statements (his recent change of position), George Jr's speech to the UN on 12 Sept will be major news. Literally everything in the Bush doctrine - the 'axis of evil' - is now dependent on what he says in that speech. George Jr has no choice. He must make a case for the invasion of Iraq since nothing else was more important to his adminstration.

George Jr's admininstration was planning to justify attacks on Iraq before 11 Sept and before he publically declared an 'axis of evil'. For some strange reason, the elimination of Saddam has always been #1 on George Jr's list of priorities. 11 Sept and Intafada II simply distracted him.

This will be George Jr's showdown. He must prove that Saddam, the recognized leader of a sovereign nation, a UN member, can be removed by force only because of what he may do. This is not an easy task especially since so many major American allies have already declared that ervidence of a threat does not exist.

Adlai Stevenson went before the UN during the Cuban Missile crisis with his "I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over ..." confronation - complete with secret satellite photographs. Krushchev's famous "We will bury you" while slamming his shoe on the pulpit. Something rare in the UN - a dramatic confrontation. George Jr's speech must be on par with those famous historical events - to justify an unprovoked or suprise attack on Iraq. I have no doubt that he will be at his best in that speech. I doubt he can provide sufficient evidence to sway the French, Germans, Russians, and China. Expect that speech to be carried live on all commercial broadcast stations of any consequence.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by tw

...an unprovoked or suprise attack on Iraq.

Oh, dear. Still at it, eh?

"Unprovoked" there could even be debate about. But the only creatures that could possibly be *surprised* will be purple gas-filled jellyfish from Alpha Centaurus III.

9/11 was a surprise attack. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. But Iraq? Do you really need the negative connotation of "surprise attack" so badly you're willing to abuse the word that much?

You have a career awaiting you writing ad copy.

[russotto]

Originally posted by MaggieL

OK, hypothetical scenario: a low-yield fission bomb, say tens of kilotons, detonates at ground-level in Tel Aviv. No aircraft or missles were tracked incoming before the strike. Isotope analysis fails to identify the source of the fissionables.

If my name were Saddam Hussein, I wouldn't trust that Israeli intelligence WOULDN'T figure out the source of the fissionables. It's not like there's really more than two viable possibilities (Pakistan being the other). I also wouldn't trust that the nuked Israelis wouldn't nuke me back even without hard evidence.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by russotto
If my name were Saddam Hussein, I wouldn't trust that Israeli intelligence WOULDN'T figure out the source of the fissionables.

I was only talking about isotope analysis...which still won't tell you who bombed you. Isotope analysis *might* even reveal that the source was a US reactor, albeit one with bad security. Currently the anthrax attacks are thought by some to have been carried out with anthrax stolen from US labs.

The problem wih Saddam having WMDs is two -fold: he might use them himself, or more likely provide them to non-state terrorists he considers "friendly". alQueda kamikazi bent on jihad are a much better (and cheaper) delivery system than a Scud clone.

Not deeply related to this point, I nontheless found this essay interesting...
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...115884039.html

[jaguar]

Hmmm seems a missed quite a bit. After reading though I decided i didn't miss much at all

Yea i saw that essay in the paper here (I get the age and the Australian, generally i prefer age age opinion for ideas and australian for....technical accuracy). The only problem is that it doesn't address *why* there is a rise in fundamentalist Islam and thus misses the bigger picture nor does it make any great points. Solid piece of nonwriting.